Confirmed Minutes of the 226th

Meeting

of the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE)

held on 9 October 2017 at 2:30 pm

Present:

Mr Stanley WONG, SBS, JP (Chairman)

Prof Nora TAM, BBS, JP (Deputy Chairman)

Ir Cary CHAN, JP

Dr Billy HAU

Dr HUNG Wing-tat, MH

Ms Julia LAU

Dr Michael LAU

Mr Andrew LEE

Prof Kenneth LEUNG

Ir Prof Irene LO, JP

Mr Anthony LOCK

Ir MA Lee-tak, SBS

Prof John NG

Ir Michelle TANG

Dr Eric TSANG

Mr Luther WONG, JP

Mr Simon WONG, JP

Prof WONG Sze-chun, BBS, JP

Mrs Alice CHEUNG, JP (Secretary)

Absent with Apologies:

Prof LAU Chi-pang, JP

Prof Albert LEE

Ir Conrad WONG, BBS, JP

Prof Jonathan WONG, MH, JP

In Attendance:

Mr Donald TONG Permanent Secretary for the Environment/Director of

Environmental Protection

Ms Lily YAM Assistant Director of Planning/Technical Services,

Planning Department (PlanD)

Mr Simon CHAN

Assistant Director (Conservation), Agriculture,

Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD)

Miss Heidi LIU Principal Information Officer, Environmental Protection

Department (EPD)

- 2 -

Ms Becky LAM Chief Executive Officer (CBD), EPD

Miss Dora CHU Executive Officer (CBD) 1, EPD

Miss Apple LEUNG Executive Officer (CBD) 2, EPD

In Attendance for Item 2:

Mr C F WONG Assistant Director (Environmental Assessment), EPD

Mr Louis CHAN Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Regional

Assessment), EPD

Mr Lawrence NGO Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional

Assessment), EPD

Mr Anthony HO Environmental Protection Officer (Regional Assessment)

12, EPD

Mr C K SOH Chief Town Planner/Urban Design & Landscape, PlanD

Project Proponent Team

MTR Corporation Limited Mr James CHOW, Deputy Head of Property Project

Mr Simon CHAN, Chief Project Manager-Property

Mr Dave NG, Acting Chief Town Planning Manager

Mr Stephen CHIK, General Manager- Planning & Civil

Engineering

Ms Felice WONG, Environment Manager

Ms Janice LO, Town Planner

Ms Louise LO, Environmental Engineer II

Simon Kwan & Associates

Limited

Mr Michael YAM, Director

Mr CHUNG Cheuk Wai, Chief Architect

Ove Arup & Partners Hong

Kong Limited

(Topside EIA Consultant)

Mr Franki CHIU, Director

Dr Camby SE, Building Physics Consultant

Ms Claudia YU, Designer

AECOM Asia Co. Limited

(Railway EIA Consultant)

Mr Jimmy HUI, Technical Director

- 3 -

In Attendance for Item 3:

******************************

Action

The Chairman informed Members that apologies of absence had been

received from Prof Lau Chi-pang, Prof Albert Lee, Ir Conrad Wong and Prof

Jonathan Wong.

2. The Chairman reported that the draft minutes of the 225th

meeting held on

3 July 2017 was confirmed by circulation without proposed amendments.

Item 1 : Matters arising (Closed-door session)

3. There were no matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting.

Item 2 : Report of the 140th

Environmental Impact Assessment Subcommittee

Meeting

(ACE Paper 18/2017)

Internal Discussion Session (Closed-door session)

4. The Chairman informed that the following Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) reports had been discussed at the Environmental Impact

Assessment Subcommittee (EIASC) meeting on 11 September 2017:-

(i) Siu Ho Wan Station and Siu Ho Wan Depot Replanning Works

(Railway EIA); and

Mr Dick CHOI Senior Marine Conservation Officer (West), AFCD

Mr T S SO Environmental Protection Officer(Mega Project) 1, EPD

Project Proponent Team

Airport Authority Hong Kong Mr Kevin POOLE, Executive Director, Third Runway

Mr Peter LEE, General Manager, Environment, Third

Runway

Mr Martin PUTNAM, Senior Manager, Environment,

Third Runway

Ms Mabel QUAN, Manager, Project Liaison

ERM Hong Kong Dr Jasmine NG, Partner

Mr Raymond CHOW, Consultant

- 4 -

Action

(ii) Proposed Comprehensive Residential and Commercial Development

atop Siu Ho Wan Depot (Topside EIA).

The discussion and recommendations of the EIASC on the two EIA reports had

been summarized in ACE Paper 18/2017.

5. The Chairman invited declarations of interests from Members. For

Railway EIA, three Members declared that they hold shares of MTR Corporation

Limited (MTRC). A Member declared that she was an employee of the AECOM

Asia Co. Limited which was a consultant of the Railway EIA, but she was not

involved in the project to be discussed. Another Member declared that he was

engaged in a consultancy project with AECOM which had no relevancy with the

EIA reports to be discussed. A Member, being a member of World Wide Fund,

advised that the renewal programme of its facilities at Mai Po had engaged various

consultants including AECOM Asia Company Ltd. The meeting agreed that all

Members concerned could stay on and continue participating in the discussion.

6. The meeting agreed that the discussion would first discuss the Railway

EIA, followed by the Topside EIA.

Railway EIA

7. On the invitation of the Chairman, the EIASC Chairperson reported that

the Railway EIA report was submitted by the MTRC and was made available for

public inspection from 14 July to 12 August 2017. A total of eight public

comments had been received by EPD during the public inspection period. Having

regard to the findings of the Railway EIA report and the supplementary information

provided by the project proponent at the EIASC meeting, the Subcommittee

recommended the full Council endorse the Railway EIA report with two conditions

and two recommendations as set out in paragraph 14 of ACE Paper 18/2017.

8. A Member drew Members’ attention to the fact that the Railway EIA was a

Schedule 2 project, whereby an Environmental Permit (EP) was required for its

construction and operation; and the Topside EIA was a Schedule 3 project, for

which an EP was not required under the EIA Ordinance (EIAO). He considered

that it was undesirable for the project proponent to undertake separate EIA studies

for the two projects as they were highly interrelated.

9. Mr C F Wong clarified that, while he noted the potential benefits of having

- 5 -

Action

one single EIA for the two projects, it was permissible under the EIAO for the

project proponent to undertake two separate EIA studies. Prior approval from the

authority was not required. He noted that the project proponent had explained in

the EIA reports that the arrangement of undertaking separate EIAs was to

streamline the project implementation and provide ease of reference for the public.

Having said that, he stressed that mitigation measures, in particular for noise

impacts, should be provided at source as far as practicable under the EIA

mechanism.

10. A Member opined and the Chairman agreed that the meeting should come

up with independent recommendations for the two projects with regard to the scope

and roles of the project proponent for each project.

Connectivity and walkability within the project site

11. A Member suggested that recommendation (d) i.e. “to provide facilities

including pedestrian walkway, linkage, public spaces and cycle tracks to enhance

connectivity and walkability within the project site and also to the adjacent

waterfront and nearby Tung Chung New Town Extension” should be upgraded as a

condition. He considered that it was important to enhance internal connection in

terms of walkability and cycling with a view to reducing the need for transportation

within the Railway project site, thereby minimizing noise impacts and emissions.

12. As the project proponent agreed to provide all-weather pedestrian links and

cycle track networks, a Member suggested and another Member agreed to allow

greater flexibility for the project proponent to consider providing alternative

facilities, such as travellators. A Member proposed and the meeting agreed that

instead of making recommendation (d) a condition, the project proponent should be

“strongly recommended” to provide facilities to enhance connectivity and

walkability within the project site.

13. A Member opined that there was respective work to be conducted under

each project for the waterfront to be fully utilized. With reference to the

supplementary information submitted by the project proponent after the EIASC

meeting, the use of the waterfront would be maximized by incorporating various

design elements and facilities in the proposed development. In order to enhance

connectivity to and allow more space for the waterfront, the Member pointed out

that fundamental changes should be made under the Railway EIA, such as setting

back the depot edge. Notwithstanding the agreement in para. 12, he proposed

- 6 -

Action

with the support of two other Members to consider upgrading recommendation (d)

as a condition or including a new condition to mandate the setback of the depot

edge and provision of more public space.

14. A Member opined that the purpose of EIA was to assess whether a project

would have negative impacts on the baseline conditions and to propose mitigation

measures as necessary. She considered that it might not be justified to impose EP

conditions that would require the project proponent to make enhancements or

introduce work that would result in positive environmental impacts.

15. A Member said that recommendation (d) was concerned with walkability

and connectivity within the project site; and if it was considered that the design and

use of the waterfront should also be addressed, it would be more appropriate to

include a separate condition or recommendation.

16. Mr C F Wong said that any proposed conditions should be relevant to the

EIAO and the Technical Memorandum (TM). As the TM had not specified any

requirements on walkability and connectivity, it might not be appropriate to

upgrade recommendation (d) into a condition. He added that, in any case, the

project proponent had agreed to provide a minimum of two metres setback for the

majority of the depot edge along the waterfront as stated in its supplementary

information.

17. Ms Lily Yam supplemented that there was no Outline Zoning Plan (OZP)

covering the project site at this stage. In drawing up the draft OZP which was

currently in progress, comments from relevant bureaux/departments (B/Ds),

including EPD, would be solicited on the proposed land use zoning and

development parameters, etc. of the concerned site. She assured Members that

their comments and suggestions would be reflected to PlanD via EPD. The Town

Planning Board (TPB), when considering the draft OZP, would take into account

comments received from concerned B/Ds/parties, amongst other relevant factors.

The Chairman echoed that the TPB attached great importance to land uses relating

to the waterfront and would take into account the views of advisory bodies

including ACE.

18. A Member wondered whether developing the waterfront might have

significant impact on the Railway project. Another Member was of the view that

the spatial requirement for the waterfront was insignificant to the Railway project

development. Furthermore, as the construction of the Railway project would be

- 7 -

Action

carried out in phases without disruption to the normal operation to the depot and

railway services, the proposed condition if made was unlikely to cause a delay in

the Railway project development. A Member added that the project proponent

had agreed to set back the depot edge to provide more open space for the use of the

waterfront.

Landscape and visual impacts

19. A Member asked about the relevance of potential landscape and visual

impacts. Mr C K Soh pointed out that the existing waterfront was a man-made

feature on reclaimed land that was likely to be of a low usage, hence no negative

impact from the Railway project was anticipated. However, he agreed that the

value of the waterfront could be significantly enhanced subsequent to the change of

land use, and the proposed Topside development would be a good opportunity to

improve the landscape and visual quality of the waterfront area.

20. Mr Donald Tong said that proposed conditions should have sufficient legal

basis under the EIAO and the TM for the purpose of good governance, and to

afford the Government good public defense against legal challenges, if any. He

advised that even no EP was required for the construction and operation of

Schedule 3 designated projects, the project proponents could be required to

undertake relevant measures through mechanisms like the town planning or the

land lease. Mr C F Wong cited the Pak Shek Kok Development, which was a

Schedule 3 designated project, as an example and said that the requirement for

carrying out noise mitigation measures was imposed on the land lease for meeting

the TM requirements.

21. With reference to Section 8.1 in Annex 18 of the TM, Mr C K Soh agreed

with two Members that mitigation should not only be concerned with damage

reduction but also potential landscape visual enhancement. Nevertheless, the TM

had not stipulated clearly the standards or benchmarks for such enhancement.

PlanD considered that the project had met the TM requirements in consideration

that there was no significant landscape and visual impact anticipated; and the

project proponent had demonstrated its commitment to mitigating possible impact

and enhancing the landscape and visual quality of the site. He opined that there

was always room to improve; and a condition requiring the project proponent to

enhance the landscape and visual quality should be in compliance with Annex 18 of

the TM.

- 8 -

Action

22. Mr C F Wong explained that in general, unless there was evidence that the

project might not be able to meet the TM requirements, it would not be desirable to

ask the project proponents to accept a condition purely to enhance environmental

performance, as this might be subject to challenges and would have undesirable

read-across implications. He further advised that, for the project in question, if

there was no evidence showing that negative landscape impacts would arise from

the project itself, it would be difficult to justify the imposition of the condition

requiring the project proponent to submit a landscape plan to enhance the landscape

and visual quality of the site.

23. Following on this, two Members considered that the construction of the

extensive wall of 1.6 kilometres along the site boundary which was near to the

waterfront would inevitably lead to negative visual impacts. On the premises that

the project would have negative landscape impacts, a Member considered that

requiring the project proponent to submit a Landscape and Visual Plan could be

justified.

24. In summarizing the discussions, the Chairman suggested for Members’

consideration an additional condition requiring the project proponent to submit a

detailed Landscape and Visual Plan of the project especially showing the landscape

and visual features along the waterfront with a view to minimizing the overall

landscape and visual impact of the project. Members agreed.

25. Mr Donald Tong added that EPD would follow up with relevant authorities

including Department of Justice as necessary to ensure that the proposed additional

condition as suggested by the ACE to be imposed on the EP would be legally

justified under the EIAO and TM; and enforceable.

EPD

Topside EIA

26. A Member reported that the Topside EIA report was made available for

public inspection from 14 July to 12 August 2017, during which a total of six public

comments had been received by the EPD. Having regard to the findings of the

EIA report and the information provided by the project proponent at the EIASC

meeting on 11 September 2017, Members considered it necessary for the project

proponent to provide supplementary information. As it was not feasible to arrange

another EIASC meeting before the full Council meeting today, Members agreed to

invite the project proponent to attend the full Council meeting to address the

outstanding issues.

- 9 -

Action

[The presentation team joined the meeting at this juncture.]

Presentation cum Question-and-Answer Session (Open session)

27. Mr James Chow gave opening remarks. With the aid of a powerpoint

presentation, Mr Michael Yam and Mr Franki Chiu briefed Members on the

background, design concept and considerations as well as environmental outcomes

and benefits of the Topside project.

Landscape and visual impacts

28. Two Members expressed their appreciation towards the project proponent

for its efforts in providing additional information to explain the design concepts and

considerations of the proposed plan, and addressing Members’ concerns raised at

the last EIASC meeting. With a view to building a liveable and sustainable

community, a Member suggested considerations be given to connecting the

proposed breezeways with facilities of greater human activities such as schools.

With a view to realizing the elaborate plans and designs, Ms Lau reminded the

project proponent to take extra care when setting the contractual terms and

tendering requirements.

Noise impacts

29. In order to minimize the proposed extent of fixed windows for two-third

along the southern façade in the proposed development scheme, two Members

suggested mitigating the noise impacts at source and deploying alternative noise

mitigation measures such as installing ventilators and acoustic balconies. As the

project site was located in a geographically advantageous area surrounded by the

natural environment, a Member opined that the project proponent should fully

capitalize on such advantage in the planning and design of the development.

30. Mr Franki Chiu explained that the southern facades of residential towers

along the southern boundary were exposed to noise sources including the road

traffic noise from North Lantau Highway (NLH), and railway noise from Tung

Chung Line (TCL) and Airport Express Line (AEL). The predicted noise levels

exceeded relevant noise criteria by a large extent and could not be fully addressed

by deploying mitigation measures at source. Self-protecting building design was

- 10 -

Action

therefore proposed with the use of fixed windows at the habitable rooms along the

southern facades, coupled with the provision of noise canopy along the southern

podium and acoustic windows to achieve full compliance of relevant noise criteria.

Nevertheless, he said that the project proponent would keep in view of the latest

technology to explore opportunities to optimize the noise mitigation arrangements

during the detailed design stage.

31. A Member expressed his disappointment that the railway noise could not

be mitigated entirely at source. Mr Simon Chan of MTRC explained that the

extent of the noise canopy had already been maximized given the spatial constraints

after the construction of Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link. Mr Stephen Chik

supplemented that the design of the track form had already been optimized in order

to minimize the noise impacts.

32. Given that the occupants of the concerned flats at the southern facades of

residential towers might have different levels of acceptance towards noise impacts,

a Member suggested that if legally permissible, the occupants should be given the

option to open the windows. He also pointed out the possibility that the noise

impacts, such as vehicle engines, might be reduced over time with advancement in

technology.

Connectivity and walkability within the project site

33. A Member enquired about the treatment of and connectivity to the

waterfront area. Mr Michael Yam advised that subject to further liaison with the

relevant B/Ds, landscape paving or greening would be conducted at the service road

along the waterfront. Furthermore, to maximize the use of the waterfront, the

project proponent had proposed the following provisions subject to detailed design

of the depot:-

(i) a minimum of two metres setback for the majority of the depot edge

along the waterfront to provide more space for tree planting,

landscaping and provision of various facilities;

(ii) open staircases at appropriate intervals along the waterfront; and

(iii) viewing balcony at podium level.

34. In reply to a Member’s enquiry on whether further setback of the depot

edge was possible for the provision of pocket parks and gardens and other facilities,

Mr Michael Yam advised that subject to the depot development, the project

- 11 -

Action

proponent would explore the feasibility of providing further setback at some

locations during the detailed design stage.

35. A Member requested the project proponent to supplement drawings of

covered walkways and cycling tracks and to consider enhancing the connectivity

and walkability between the podium level and the ground level. He further

suggested that the project proponent should enhance the environmental design of

the passenger waiting areas in the Public Transport Interchange (PTI) and consider

the provision of comfortable passenger waiting areas and more environmentally

friendly facilities.

MTRC

36. Mr Simon Chan of MTRC said that the connectivity and walkability within

the project site would be enhanced by the provision of covered walkways, cycling

tracks and passageway to connect the shopping mall to the station concourse.

E-Shuttle buses were also proposed as a means of low-emission transport option.

The optimized designs or arrangements of these provisions would be explored

during the detailed design stage.

37. A Member suggested the project proponent consider adopting a bicycle

sharing system with a view to minimizing parking spaces and facilitating users’

access to cycling facilities.

38. In addition to the provision of internal cycle track network at podium deck

level, a Member suggested extending the cycle track to enhance the external

connectivity of the project site with the nearby Tung Chung New Town Extension

(TCNTE) as well as Sunny Bay along North Lantau Highway.

39. Mr Simon Chan of MTRC assured Members that they were committed to

building a green and sustainable city and would try their best to optimize the design

of the development during the detailed design stage.

40. A Member invited the project proponent to make regular progress reports

to ACE on a voluntary basis to facilitate further review and improvements for the

project development.

Conclusion

41. The Chairman thanked the project proponent for the presentation and

detailed explanations and asked it to take into consideration Members’ comments

- 12 -

Action

and suggestions when optimizing the plans and designs at the detailed design stage.

[The presentation team and Mr C K Soh left the meeting at this juncture.]

Internal Discussion Session (Closed-door session)

42. The Chairperson of EIASC reported that the EIASC had recommended the

full Council consider recommendations as set out in paragraph 12 of the ACE paper

18/2017 should it decide to endorse the EIA report.

43. A Member suggested and another Member supported to include additional

recommendations concerning the design of the PTI and the interface and

connection between the residential area and the waterfront promenade at ground

level.

44. A Member reminded other Members that as the waterfront area was

unleased Government land outside the project area, the relevant recommendation

should focus on the connectivity to the waterfront and the provision of public areas

within the project site.

45. Given that the project proponent could fully address the concerns raised by

Members at the EIASC meeting held on 11 September 2017, the Chairman

suggested and Members agreed to endorse the EIA report and accept all

recommendations proposed by the EIASC with two additional recommendations

for the Topside EIA:-

(i) enlarge the public areas on the ground floor of the waterfront

promenade by reducing the footprint of the Depot in some areas

whenever possible, to create more space for public use and enjoyment

along the waterfront; and

(ii) enhance the environmental design of passenger waiting areas in the

PTI and consider the provision of comfortable passenger waiting

areas and more environmentally friendly facilities such as share use of

bicycles.

[Mr C F Wong, Mr Louis Chan, Mr Lawrence Ngo and Mr Anthony Ho left the

meeting at this juncture.]

- 13 -

Action

Item 3 : Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway

System - Update on the Implementation of Marine Ecology and Fisheries

Enhancement Measures

(ACE Papers19/2017 and 20/2017)

46. The Chairman invited Members to declare interest. A Member declared

that she was a Member of the Marine Ecology Enhancement Fund Management

Committee set up by the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK). Another

Member declared that he was a Member of the Steering Committee for the Marine

Ecology and Fisheries Enhancement Funds and the Chairman of the Fisheries

Enhancement Fund Management Committee. Two Members declared that they

were Members of the Aviation Development and Three-runway System Advisory

Committee.

[The project proponent team joined the meeting at this juncture.]

Presentation cum Question-and-Answer Session (Open session)

47. Mr Kevin Poole introduced Members to the non-EP related measures that

AAHK had undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed Three-runway System (3RS)

marine park area and/ or near to the 3RS area. With the aid of a powerpoint

presentation, Dr Jasmine Ng briefed Members on the framework of the Marine

Ecology and Fisheries Enhancement Strategy (MEFES). Under the MEFES, she

explained that AAHK had provided funding for several potential marine ecology

and fisheries enhancement measures, including eco-enhancement of seawall

designs, voluntary surveillance, and other potential measures that might aid or

assist in the effective management of the Marine Parks (MPs), artificial reef (AR)

deployment and fish restocking / fish fry release.

Fish restocking / Fish fry release

48. The Chairperson enquired whether the practice of releasing fish species

with high commercial value would contradict the release of native and locally

depleted species. Dr Jasmine Ng explained that there was no contradiction

between the two methods as some of the locally depleted species were of high

commercial value, e.g. the Hong Kong groupers. She added that having

consulted the relevant stakeholders, monitoring would be designed and conducted

to assess if some high commercial value species could be suitable candidate

species for release, and whether additional measures relating to their release could

- 14 -

Action

be explored for the benefit of the local fishing industry.

49. Noting that it was impracticable to confine the movements of fish species

once they were released, rendering post-release monitoring difficult and

ineffective, a Member suggested AAHK construct an oyster reef in the subtidal

area or using colonized structures which would provide good surface for other

marine species to settle on and create micro-habitats for larval fish. He added

that this approach not only could benefit the whole marine ecosystem, but also

allow effective monitoring be conducted at the oyster reef as compared to the

approach proposed by AAHK. He further suggested that the fish fry release

should be done at estuaries instead of open waters in light of the more suitable

survival conditions provided by the former.

Eco-enhancement of seawall designs

50. A Member commended AAHK’s voluntary efforts on the implementation

of the various marine ecology and fisheries enhancement measures. Noting that

the design of a sloping seawall could attract birds which was undesirable for

aircraft operational safety, he questioned if AAHK would conduct trials in order to

optimize the design of the seawall and whether reference could be made to

successful examples from overseas so as to minimize the attraction of birds.

51. Mr Peter Lee said that AAHK had recognized the issue of bird attraction as

one of the key challenges when reviewing potential seawall eco-enhancement

designs. He explained that the features in the proposed design adopted for a

sloping seawall included rock pools and eco-concrete which were subtidal and

hence would not emerge and attract birds during low tide. On the other hand,

since vertical seawall had a limited potential for birds to stand and forage,

intertidal rock pools were incorporated into its design.

52. Drawing on his experience in conducting a trial on eco-enhancement of

seawall design, a Member remarked on the importance of lowering the pH level of

the eco-concrete, for example by using carbon fibre as reinforcement instead of

iron to facilitate the growth of marine benthos. He suggested that the project

proponent could incorporate a facet into the seawall structure to increase its

complexity and durability. Since the relevant technology in the field of

eco-shoreline engineering had been developing rapidly, he suggested AAHK make

reference to overseas experience such as the Seattle Elliott Bay Seawall Project to

explore more innovative eco-enhancement designs for the seawall. In response,

- 15 -

Action

Mr Kevin Poole thanked for the suggestion and undertook to assess the

practicability of different designs with a view to adopting the best option for

eco-enhancement of the seawall.

53. A Member opined that the intertidal and subtidal rock pools for vertical

seawall were rather artificial, and concurred with another Member on the need to

devise more innovative designs to develop a more natural-looking eco-shoreline.

Chinese White Dolphins monitoring

54. Noting that the focus of AAHK’s presentation was mainly on the

enhancement measures to support the conservation of fisheries resources for local

fishery industry, a Member suggested that measures to conserve Chinese White

Dolphins (CWDs), which was one of the major public concerns should also be

given due consideration. In response, Mr Peter Lee said that the purpose for

implementing the MEFES was to enhance the marine environment for the benefits

of marine ecology, which included CWDs. As such, it had taken into account the

need to minimize the impact on CWDs when considering the habitats to be

introduced in the eco-enhancement of seawall design. He added that monitoring

would be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the eco-enhancement designs of

the artificial seawall. The need for additional measures on top of existing ones

would be subject to the results of the monitoring programme which was yet to be

available.

55. A Member further enquired whether sightings of CWDs would be

included. Mr Peter Lee clarified that AAHK had maintained comprehensive

sighting records of CWDs in accordance with the requirements under the

Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Programme, and continuously

conducted surveys twice per month to monitor CWDs. On top of the existing

CWDs monitoring efforts, Mr Lee said that AAHK proposed to record

observations of prohibited activities and conduct additional monitoring during

night time within the MPs as part of the proposed pilot test for voluntary

surveillance.

Artificial Reef (AR) deployment

56. Noting that a pilot test would be conducted on AR deployment to

determine the possible deployment locations, a Member was concerned about the

parameters to be included in the pilot tests. In addition, he asked AAHK to

- 16 -

Action

consult ACE again on its future plans to identify suitable sites around the airport

for AR deployment. Mr Peter Lee emphasized that during the course of devising

the enhancement measures including eco-enhancement of seawall design, AR

deployment and fish fry release, the local fishery industry had been consulted on

the types of fish species to be released and the best locations for this purpose. He

added that to better determine the value of AR deployment in the area, a pilot test

would be conducted within the existing Hong Kong International Airport Approach

Area (HKIAAA) to the west of HKIA’s south runway where fishing was

prohibited, which was an area suitable for AR deployment trial. The pilot test

was arranged to assess the effectiveness of AR deployment and would provide

useful information for determining the potential value of ARs if deployed within

the proposed 3RS MPs. The detailed implementation arrangements for this

measure would be subject to the results of the pilot tests.

57. Dr Jasmine Ng further explained that a Member’s earlier suggestion of

the use of oyster beds and colonized structures had been taken into consideration.

AAHK intended to increase the habitats for oysters and other sessile organisms and

would also look into the fish assemblage associated with the created habitats for

obtaining useful information for determining the potential value of ARs within the

proposed 3RS MPs.

Voluntary surveillance

58. A Member appreciated the additional measures proposed by AAHK to

enhancing marine ecology. As regards to the voluntary surveillance that recorded

occurrences of illegal activities within the MPs, the Member suggested AAHK

share the relevant information with AFCD in real time in case enforcement actions

were to be taken, in particular the illegal fishing activities such as trawling.

59. Mr Peter Lee said that the current proposal for voluntary surveillance

was to record suspected prohibited activities such as speeding cases within the

MPs. While data received at the AAHK operated Marine Traffic Control Centre

for automatic identification system (AIS) equipped vessels could provide some

information on the identity of the speeding vessels concerned, Mr Lee pointed out

that difficulty might arise in identifying whether fishing boats had a valid permit to

conduct fishing activities within the MPs during the course of surveillance. As

such, the current focus of the pilot test using voluntary surveillance was to get an

overview of the present situation of the prohibited activities conducted within the

MPs, and details of future reporting / communication protocol would be discussed

- 17 -

Action

with AFCD at a later stage.

Effectiveness of the enhancement measures

60. While appreciating AAHK’s efforts in conducting a feasibility study for

AR deployment and fish restocking, a Member suggested with the concurrence of

another Member that AAHK should draw up certain indicators to measure the

effectiveness of the measures proposed.

61. A Member remarked on the importance to set the objectives clear in order

to determine the scope of monitoring for the eco-enhancement of seawall design.

She enquired on what the specific objectives would be, such as ecosystem

functioning or services and/or types of habitats created. Rather than monitoring

species diversity and the number of individual organisms which might not be

directly related to enhancing the ecological value of the seawall, the Member

suggested setting objectives for enhancing ecosystem function or services

including the monitoring of human activities for this purpose.

62. In relation to the monitoring methods for fish restocking/ fish fry release,

Dr Jasmine Ng acknowledged that difficulty might arise in relation to sending

divers or Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) for monitoring due to issue of

turbid waters. As such, AAHK would consider different methods for monitoring

the progress of fish restocking during Phase One, e.g. the use of scuba and/or

ecological surveyors conduct surveys, and also technology-based methods such as

GoPro cameras for video recording. The final methods and technology to be

adopted would be based on the results obtained after Phase One restocking. As

regards to the objectives set for Phase One restocking, Dr Ng said that they would

look into the site fidelity and movement patterns of the released fish species.

With empirical data obtained, useful information on the suitable restocking scale

and appropriate monitoring methodology could be devised to optimize the future

restocking programme in Phase Two. Dr Ng added that AAHK had and would

continue to collaborate with AFCD on exploring advance technologies for

monitoring and improving the relevant protocols.

Conclusion

63. The Chairman thanked AAHK for its presentation and explanation and

invited AAHK to consider seeking ACE’s views in future on the findings and

further progress of the proposed marine ecology and fisheries enhancement

- 18 -

Action

measures.

[The project proponent team left the meeting at this juncture.]

Internal Discussion Session (Closed-door session)

64. Noting that AFCD had already conducted AR studies and deployed AR in

Hong Kong waters in the past and such information was available, a Member

sought clarification on the need for AAHK to conduct the pilot tests. Mr Dick

Choi explained that previous AR deployment by AFCD focused on the Eastern

waters of Hong Kong, and issues of high turbidity and sedimentation in the

Western Hong Kong waters had made it difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of

AR surveys in western waters. As such, AAHK’s voluntary efforts to conduct the

feasibility studies and pilot tests on AR deployment and fish restocking should be

supported.

65. A Member suggested AFCD strengthen the exchange of information with

AAHK in future, such that the latter could better utilize its resources and funds on

conducting surveys in new research areas and obtaining the relevant information

on new technologies and designs that could be incorporated into its enhancement

measures. Another Member concurred and suggested AAHK conduct studies to

obtain useful and updated information at the initial stage which could be important

for future implementation of the enhancement measures within the MPs.

Item 4 : Any other business (Closed-door session)

66. To facilitate a smooth flow of discussion and free exchange of views at the

meeting, a Member suggested that any verification of the legality and

enforceability of conditions proposed by Members at the meeting could be done

after the meeting. Mrs Alice Cheung thanked him for the comments and assured

Members that the intention of EPD was to facilitate Members’ discussion by

advising Members of potential legal or enforceability issues.

67. Given that some projects might span over long periods of time and there

might be changes to the baseline conditions, a Member enquired whether project

proponents were required to conduct a new EIA and consult ACE before the

commencement of the construction of the projects.

68. A Member understood that there were provisions under the EIAO for

- 19 -

Action

project proponents to apply for a variation of the conditions of the EP in the event

certain EP conditions could not be fully implemented. An approval would be

given if there were no material changes to the environmental impact of the project

and the project still complied with the requirements as described in the TM.

69. A Member was confident that EPD and the AFCD would be responsible

for monitoring the project implementation in accordance with the EM&A manual.

70. There was no other business for discussion at the meeting.

Item 5 : Date of next meeting (Closed-door session)

71. The Chairman advised Members that the next ACE meeting was scheduled

on 6 November 2017 (Monday). Members would be advised on the agenda in

due course.

ACE Secretariat

November 2017